HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report (2) t.
h -
•
1 HON:LAWRENCE G -ANTOLINI DEC _ 6 2006
Judge of the Superior Court, Deoartment 21
2 State of California, County of Sonoma SUPERIOR C R OG CALIFORNI
3035 Cie/eland Avenue, Suite 200 M OF SONOMA
3 Santa Rosa, CA95403 By DFPI I-v J QV LI i
Telephone: (707) 524-6440;
4 Fax: (707) 524-6445
5
7
1 8 STJPERIOR"COURT OF CAL,L�'OR\A. COUNTY OF SONOMA .
9 •
10 FRIENDS OF-THE EEL,RIVER, et al., No.,220847
11 Petitioners,
CORRECTED
c^ ,, %a.. 12 'v. - STATEMENT OF DECISION ON FIRST
AND SECOND CAUSES•OF ACTION
i• t 1.3 SONOMA.COUNTY WA'1hRAGENCY, AND ORDER
IP: 14 I Respondent Unlimited Civil Case :
15
16 PACIFIC GAS &;ELECTRIC COMPA- Y,
Real Party in Interest. • .
17 - i ..
/ .
18
19 This petition for writ of.mandate'and complaint for declaratory and•injunctive relief
20 on Petitioners' first and second causes of action came.onreaiiarls for hearing on Aiigust 14,
71-. 16, and 18, 2000, m,the above-entitled.Court. Friends of the Eel River, et al., and Sonoma '
• 22 County Water Agency appeared by their respective attorneys of record. Pacific Gas &
23 Electric Company did not appear: Following. argument,the matter was taken under
24; submission. The Court's final'Judgment Was attached to the tentative statement of decision
75 filed August 25;'2000:
76 The p arties did`not submit.formal requests fora written statement of decision.
.111/ . 77 However, the Respondent did submit a proposed statement of decision. The Respondent.
78 f •
-1 . . • 1
H
CORRECTED STATEMENT'OF DECISION.ON FIRST"AND I
•
1 .•served•the Petitioners with a„,copy'oftliaf proposed'statement of decision. The Court has,
2 , considered the Respondent's PrOposals. Having considerec1411,Ofith-e eVidencepresented,•and
3 under CRC Sectibm232 and.CCP Section 632, the Court debidedtliata-written•stafement of
4, decision was.necessarv'to reconithe,analysiS'rin this case. The Court prepared a tentative
5 statement of decision and allowed the parties 15 days to submit objections for the Court's
6 consideratiOn. TheReSpen&Vsubmitted a letter,dated September 2000:-....Petitioners did
7 net Submit objections. The Court has prepared this final statement of decision. This final
8 statement of decision corrects the statement decision filed.NOvereber:j4, 2000. •
9 I. Facts '••
10 Thetalfomia Legisla:thie,createftthe4SonOrna•county Water Agency.(Water
• r•
• ' U Agency) in 1949.to act as the local sponsor for federal flood control and Wafer supply
• . 12 projects;knoWn_celleciiVelyfasafieIRussian•:Rier Projeet. Wegtis Ann'Cal Water Code Ajap:r:I
13 §5345. Althobidis the boundaries of the Agency are the samems,the boundaries of the le
• 14 County of Sonoma, and the same incifyidhals siton the governing boardS of both the County • 1,
. .
., 15 and the Wafer Affetey, the Water Agency is aIleaalentity separate and•distiiactfrom the
16 County. 're-II:font. y.• couniy of Sbnomd41,974) 40'Cal.App3d 743; 749.
The Water,Agency is the prima ryi water,:supplierfor 350,000U:esidepta of;thercities of
18 Cotati, Petaluma, R.ohnen Park, Santa Sonoma and the Forettifile,,North'Marin,
19 and Valley of the Moon Water Districts 'These cities and districts are known collectively as
- 20 the Agency's "Water contractors " The Water Agency also provides a,supplementalrwater
,21 supply to.170,000 peeple•in.the Marin Munidipar'Water District service area [AR.I8a.f4499, '
22 ' 45063 - - -
913 In 1992, the water contractors requested the,WaterAzency tedeVeloP,a,project to I .
.
. -24 expand the exthingUater transinfs§fon systern•tO terkie"theif-fdture water needs,: [AR 1:3d
25 The new Otject which is the subject of this dispute (Water Project)was developed
26 Hi .
27 • • •I
•
. . •
. •
CORRECTED STATEMENT'OE DECISION GIN FIRST AND I "
.. . . .
. . .",..
,- . „ . ' a' , ' - •
! .
. • • ..
. _.
-. 1 ,•specifi.eaLW-tcproVadeithe Water needed to serve 97.0w,titi ah-eadsnappro-ved in the war-t-
7 ' cant-actors' applicable general Plans and an.ai[-ried in,er.V4ircinithenta1-docnents-tren,red"+h7
3 --these general p'eans,.. I-2AR 1-:2] The Water P\22D.CV deterr-ii.nedthaOfne Water Project cov;16 •
L ser"e-Me:new denrmd IR:r. (1) diVer-ing an addidonal 26:000.acre feet Der year (i'42'•:) of
5: water, primarily•sfrain Lake SO461-22; (2) eistandMr. the Water..4=_Eency;s distribution system'
6 (_puinvs, pipelines„and storage, tanks) so this water could be•provided/as needed; and(3)
7 exPanditifthe Water,_kzency's ware: cor.se.rvation-program to reduce demand by-6:600 ...L.7:-v.
.... ; .• , , •8 ; The Water Project Will provide.,an expanded water supolty by increasing. releases of I!
,,i7.,..,-,,,,,1„.!::••-•-.
9 stored water from Lake Sonoma and atiOW±17:t,:..4:Avater`to flow do wri Dry Creek into fat
. .
.. I:
,.
10 •Russian River. The relta.se,etwa.ter, ardd-seasonafiy aya4'able. Russian RiWer water, would
-1.1, then be-pumped fi-om,the•Russian River and delivered to the water contractors through i
! : 1
• 1'7 expanded Tans; Mission facilitieS. 1--..2-2. 8at:447-1, .4559] !.•
. i
1 ; The.Water:Pi-0j eat-iS tot.--th.e only con.n-oversial project located Mi.:ILL-is rezi011. some or
i
1 _-
1 -Me swater stored,iin Lake Mendocino Onc_r±a±eS ± the-Eel-River watershed and is divertedhy 1 .
...•
' 5 ?G&2 from the Eel River through a manshasin-mniel•into the Russian R.i-,;er at.
- --.
16 PG&E!s Pone:::Valle.ypoWerhous e. [AR 8a-t.,45014503] These PGLEfaCilities have been! . !
- 17 divertirigEel River,wafer into-the Russian River since:1908.,-PGairholds a Feder i Power
7
8 Act license iSSued"bythe Fedeta.lEneitry R.e. ..-Ulatory COmmiSSion (FERC) for.itS-,Projet.:;1-_'AR
- -z
i -
19 8a45,03] and also liolds-state water rights authorizing its!:use„of..Thel River water. [AT. ' i
20 3 0:17738-17741] .i\-..iter,P,G&E uses me ware: to geterate:electhaity, me water flowi doWn 11
7 1
the East Fork RussiatiTiVerin.ta-Lake lviendopino, [AI-3. Sa.:45031 From 1922-1992. Eel
_ . . i .
• 77' • River diversions to dat Russian River watershed averaged about, 159000 acre
, . !
23 [AR•8e:45031
. , .
The auanti7y.o.f w•Tater,PG8:_;:divens.from the..Eel'River,each yew; is affected by 1 .
! •
'.s; . releaseS-PC _E•must haake•id maintain-Eel River ilshery. The renuired fishery release H
• t 76 schedule is included:hi PG&E's FERC license..._ La B983, FERCtisSued PG&E a new dzer_se 1,
• I.
•
77 which recuired PeCcEE, to carry out a 10-year fishery monitori_ng:smdy between,1985 and
II:
• '
Cs .. • .
. ,
. ••
-2,.- . . .
' .
. .
: 1
v - CTA,TTrIvENTOF.DIECISION101■:FaST '_ND
.
- If-
..
St:CONb",CAT_ISES OF A,CTIPN.
• €
. .
•
1 :1995. When,the &Lids,was completed., FRO bezan to consider mod' canons to t1.7e teat:red
fiow,s,thedule.•;[AR,8a:4503] liviOre. than 40vindividuals and entities, includnag:the Water*
3 • A erelicy:and:PettiOner:Friendg16±-tne5el Rlyezi are aarticir antac .n'the:PERC;"ptoteedins,'
4. lissO:Seotetnt,,er 199,6;•the.•:7"Agliter.„_4‘0.2nreleased•its Drift 771R_Ter;the Vvater. Rroi eat.
3 and allow/ea an E5-L)-culic conner nnoc More tan 1,1;101:korai and•wiilatil comments
6 were rec.eived frommore than 100 er.,:itiesandindividuals: 11.42,98a49461 'Qn No7leraber
7 1.998.,titi.e'AtencYS Board cei--iL fled:the:Final 7E ,_ [AR 1:3-.77-3(92,1 'Sortie mernoers of the'-
.• • 8 ttthlic'reque.sted...the,,E'Oaratto,delay anproval-of.,the. Water Project unr-r.L;completion of oft.121- ,9,1
9 proceedinns;:includinz,a final decision by'the FERO on,rnodificanon.S.tofPacific.?,Gas,L,
IQ •Elet-itriC Gornnany's,(PG&E's) iieense-for lit:Roiter"Valley.faciii•neS.
1-1 In'therstoause Oion; P.ennoners, rienas'of theiEel.RiVer;•et ai...(P"e-thinoners)
• 1."2- challencire'the adequacy of the Final Env#on_tfaental Impact Renat.orenared y Water nenc..v
3 lin derifne alifomia En•cii±dnmenthi.QtalityAtif (CEQA.)lei-th e.7,7.)iatetRroi tot. Perincriers
. 14 second cause of action alieLtes tnat-the approval me ate: Project: iblatedistate:Diann-"-g
15 112. r.
40.
•
• -
•
•
17' E. First Cause,of Action: C7-2.-10A Charlet-12re
: graticiard"of Review- • • •
19, '...A.ferivi.rorlthental:,innat-ci;feiott•itS:the,i.fheart of CEQ...g.'", hf:finitOS.e.isr:to infOin
20 theioubLciand its,reSnoilSible Officials iof4thevenvironmental conseduencth offneLt-deCiSions
2.1 -Deforeozhey are mace TrnthiTove7rzent,:4S.7,72. 1) Roc-.."77;,0=10---iv, (10031 1
27) 6 Ge.1.4th 1111.2, 1'1123 '(2"....cuie..7'.;2Vig-i:17 TT). '7724e!phries are in arreement-as.to the siandarc1,o4" "I
23 -.t.eSie.W".. ,litidet-ICEQA,-.a courf'S:itiouircletctends only to'whether,or notthereas a
-
• 24 oreludicial abilSe _catise,OfidcsOtettiOricis éstáb thêth .did not
25 9 prc:ibeed.'1u;a rnaPiler required:by la o- ifthe:.dezenninationor:decisiondstnot3sunnorted
26, ,SithrTitcal,eyiderite., •Sectibn liiaber.ilL5 stand? tine!,coun d.6 es
1 .
. .
• The foraft:EaR, iticlud.ed sS olumës and mOre'thati 2 200 pages
_ . • '
STATENC--1\70FD,-EcTs192. ,pi\i'FIRS.-7-.rAitN-D
EEcalCili.CAUSES..0:-ACTiai .
..; . -
. , . .. . .
. .
1 . . .
1 to:pass):upon the coiTeOtaess,of the F-_,TR.'s erwironitientai conclusions, but caly'unon:its
2 's-m!--fidien...tcV asl'ian;-infor±atie'do ca.ment. .:.,-aizr el.l'iojghtsinwrol?ernent..-Issocuition
3 1 Of Universizy of California ( 988) 47 C al.3d!37 ., 393-393 (LafiraZ He.ighas 2).
■
A Az_;azency's approyal Of.ar., ELR v,:ill be upheld if it is supported by substantial .
5 evidence in the record. SubstariUal evidence means "enourth relevant infomaation and
6 re.asdriable inferences.frona this.inic=sit on that a-,..fair.argattent can be made ICYS:TOD011.:,2.
7 conclusion. even though other conclusions r.uialar also be reached." CEQA Guidelines/
8 Section 1538 In applying, CLUs.Standard, thescourt;nails:reSolve reasonable doubts n
; 9 favor of the agency's fnaclinz. ,:nd net:Isla". libuil-aZirgighrs T ar.:--!9q. The suffici-ncy of an
10 .Ea is'measared based upon the'a4.r.s...ninisrzative'record'in existence before, not after,prdfectt
_.
, .
• 11 approval. Weszrne :Srate.s Perrolear: ASS7:. V. SilD.9.7;10-7- d011fri (l995) 9 Ca1.4± 559, 578.
-
1 ', Ti should be:noted:that on the last dav of the laearina, Petitioners stiszzest for the...first
... ,
. 13 rime that the. "fair ars-ument" standazd of reVie,w shduld be applied in this case. it should'bf.! 1.
14 stressed that the COLiii.did MOT apply this standard.; of review. This standard is:inapplicable to
. .1'
. 15 this Court's review of the adequacy ofthe:Ea DreDared by the Water Agency. See ,
i
. • 1,
16 2 O-Thelenn; v:thii10 BaSirc Mu/112:7,2Zr Fiz cre.7--DfsTriat (1955) 38 Calskop.4th 1609, 1620 !:
- ...
17 (when a petitioner a_ile.cres'tha.i an E . fails to include sufficient information or.„, 'aiparticulat 1
. i
18 issue, the reviewLas. counshou)d a-eat:ally treat such an arnunen: as a claim that the Ells.lis I;
,
, . 19 not sUpPorted by substantial evidence rather man a claim mat the agency failed to proceed in
4
20 the manner reouired 5,Y_law).
. I
, I
21. !Elwer2 lithe;"fair argument' standard had someapplicanon here, there are two
22 Problems with.it. FirEL.; the specific az-z-Jraerit.advanced by Petitioners (which is based or
1
. !.
23- ''some speculative reduction.of_t...e: River caversions).was'not presented to the-Water A :re:try ,
. I
24. and Wduld be 15& ond consideration by dais C0127. untier.the doctrine of exhaustion of
I •
,
.25 adrajUistrarive remedies. •$.e.thrid;there is no fair”argument that the use by the Water Project 1
i I
2 6 . . . . . •
27
!the CEA Guidelines ate fOund in Title 14 of thetalifomia Code of Relations,
• ' -)s' Sections! 15000 .9: q:, and are..he.reinafter referred to as the CEQA Guidelines.
, -5- . • . .
_
sTATII-M_ENT C.F.'DF717.151!9".NJOIN'T 2:1_7(ST ;LND . . ,
_
. - SECOND CAUSES OF'AC';7QIJ.: . .., . - - . . 1.
; -
• 1 •
' .
. , ,_
. . ., .
. .
. . •
, .
. .
. . l . 6,7 2-5-.000 ..4.171(t-from Lake 86nomarinvcilt,es•anv, chanze pn fue,Ier,River:which should have
7' be:eh the subje.c.:'of an Eat. The oppositefis -mit:-the:Water Proi ect-nroposet no chanze .
- ' .3' , thesEel RiVer. • •
4 1R-. ch:=11..enaas in:the•\-/-C•gte..--Prni-ct PIP.- •
, • ,
c"- - Psntioners chalienzesto:,me ftedua.cy of VVater„kgencv's F.,E . fall ms iik•.6zeneral
6 as-asti'Firt:TeritiOneit clai.M;that the•V2-ater Project will have cm- environmental il-anact. or.
• ,
7' fue:EerRiver, whiCh Shourd'have been evainated in the En. se66-fd. entionetsc1aitfrfne
g :*,/ai.ei--Aribnty' hOtild.haVe•evaltiatan altemanVt-TO tide '1■Water Project. which Petitioners -
_9' ,claint7,Voilida.tninrove Eel River condinons. Tait-d, Pentioners,assen-. therWater.kszency:
. •
. -. .
I.& •DrOject:descinution was,:todnarrov.E. Fbunfh. Pennoners claim ma t re-dent listangs of two fish
• 11 Steciel;iii the:a 12:sian Ri,ver as tLeetafened:snecies under.tide.federal:EndanzeredSpecies'Act, '
12 reaUire&recirculation.of Ine,a. 'Fita,,Ped.tiOners assert;that fae.Efl does adtvcbmolin.-an.
...
_
'1 '', adequate-ealuanon oi,tne,--W,ater Pro cot's-aro7,,,,M-isidticina and ctiniiila.fivei.inapa.cts..
t
:•-±-7inalNletitionets`claim that the $:_sreno y':.5. responsesto:public comments;on the draft-El-R. i
___,,
‘ e
.. __ .
• im arz'inaaecuate. . . . .
. . .,.
-•1:. ' Will 11;e:\P-a.-ifet-LP-r6ielt-.4-12.vet:an Undisclosed 57TIVironmental-Irmact on-
. .... . -- ,
1,
the:Eel R.iver?, -
• 1,8 : - Peatoners' first.arT.,/thent. Cdiabe-rts the Piirpoitiditelatfonsli.ip between ' i•
.. , . -- . • . 4'
• • • 1 — ..-.0-enc.v.s w ate,.._Project ect,an m- _,..„.....2.—__. ,--,,, • on,.s claim, , V 24-.2 Proj ect-will'haye-
. -- _ .....
. •
20 adVer-Se enViromnettal impattS. oti.M.e.TEel .Rtiver that arenot,discilosedahA2-ency's ELR._ In „
1 2--• 'folSired-31d :1".e.titionersittheory has•-,cht,anzed dairin,c- these proceedinzs and,novy-appears to be: Jr
. _ . _
-' _. • . . i
'77' • based luppn the claim mat-fnetAzenr.,.: shoUld'have disclosed a "looming coraict' etween:
i
7 7-,. , the:\7iater,Projeclyand rear:'-ions in the•Eel• P.:.i'file.rsalversions. Pi,evioucty, Pentibnerst claimed
' 1
24 ,t.liat the ,ktrent-ifs T.Faxet7Proj&et fiutes the ..=:_tency to take•an•ad-togacypttisinon with respect
. . .
• 7.:C=. • to I-TERCan order to‘persaade:.=C-noi to chanc-ejEtdRiver, di'yeition,s. pe,finoners also Ft
. 56• • cla_imeddhS±the Aigency'exercisestonu-ol rover P-G-&E S Pibmer ValleV.Si-biject (P7‘,772) and Eel.
'5,72:-'.1 Rivendiversions. .- .
...
. .
T s
I,
- [
, •.-6-• ..
l'•
. _ .
`.-c74-.77-2,-;c7NT:OF:,DECISIONLON'FIPST.t:c7D; • _ I
o
,.
SECOND CLAU5ES1..,OFCTION . - .
4:.
•
1 C Q i.ls,`:basic purpose is to eraf12.reAhatithe sieni+icantenvironmentall impacts
-., 2 of alproje.dfiaf f11ly iS les.eb'4aad, vrhe' V eas Die mi:_oated or prevented. CEQ
3 Guid l nes Secnon 1c002(a).. "n ELR must o'solos .nottrony immediate envronmentar
4 •impacts,aSSoc aiei with a Droj.°c but "also y nvironmental imbacts,that may be reasonably
5 SOreSeeablesconstouendes of a",Dro ec:. LQw ep eigivis l-; D. 396: On the oth _ d:and an E R
T l r. e d i
6 �nOL'!d no: discuss ff1paCSWIlYCn do no: esLT;Ln Da" Omtne project .,ti'c.Late.. u1 the
7 Ea:" CEQA,GuidellnesSecnon 15130(1)(1).. 1Tor slOLld in&±t physical chan?es in the .'.
;it; '-8 ren'ironment be discussed unless :hey are reasonably foreseeable; Pup. Resources Code, a.s.
4.9 Section 21005: kccordingly, the Court tas'exa'71ine0;Petitioners' claims to see,whether
10 Petitioners'hav metsheirburden of laenifyinsfundisclosed environmental impacts on=ne
11 Eel River thatthat be•.reasonabl oreseeabie consequences of the Water Project. For
12 reasons:set,for*.h below;.the Courrt.conciva s hatth Petitioners have faiied to meet this •
13 burden-
. 1 ^ ne recotal-sizows that the it—a filly discloses the environmental impacts that
•
1 = will be caused by kaenc1.'s-Water Prolec . ile°Water,Proj wlll`provide Water to I
6 smunlcipalines'L_Aaeiicy S service:area. This-water will come primal-f' from releases Of
17 water stored.in Take Sonoma•benmd Warm S rnas Dam on Dry Creek,a a-!butan of the
1.8 Russian_Rivet; and.from,water:seasonally availah1e in the`Russian River.
19 Petitioners do notid s-ify any speci_ic environmental impacts on the Eel.P Over
0 that will be caused.by the Water P of ci: and inde'_dithe Project wrill not have any direct!.
31 impacts on the-Efel River because no D�<.of he Project Will affect ct tioWS L'! the Eel Rive_
22 Lnstead, Pentlon.e5 asset: tnat•the of eat "^I cause some Vp of generalized ham to Eel
23 4,RiVer llshe e. Petitioners base `__ claim on the lac map some 'Pater frorn:the Eel
74 nor`in-oi'th_ RL'ssian-RiVer, -i.s Qli'e:teo into he.Russian Flyer by PG&E to produce electric:=" -
25 -. -
•
' 2 ' In 1994, the Legislature a-tended :he"aefimnon of the tea "project" to limit me
• 28 scope_ of the prior definition, which vas open-ended.
•S1'=TcIvIE i.'O DECISION ON rII '=-?
•
SFC01vT CAUSE$ OF AOI ION
a '
. . • - •
. b.
. . . ,.. ,
•
•
• ,
. ,
• " ' 1 afits;hvdi-oeleca-ic facilities in Mendocino Counry—the 1-'VP. The PVP has di:verted:Eel;
7 ,Th
t
.: •
7;, „River"Fidi Xis ittOithe Russian River isince 19082. PVT operaons arty:eon:tared bry'RERC.,10
3 Iris :true rhat"water-,2s open'odIeftedffrorn'the'.E....ii;•1-',LVei-3into;the RuS.tia-112.River
51= ;lnr.h.tailysYcentity and that. as a••::1.-.a.:-6er of 1-Ivsical fact, some watercorig_inanng:'in.,the.F_el
-- . C ;
.iVe11 .DES, fm-otizh;fat:ill-des .:_;:b be cidn•Str._icted aspart bithe "C,A,Viater•RrOjett.‘1.Howeve.:,
_
6 there‘isisubstanicia•I evidence in:the"reC,Ord' sunnonina .4..izency'siconcliision,that•TI-iere is
- 7 ' suffiCientAyarer stored.in.Lakef;Sonoina'hehind Warm Spthast,Dam"an.61 therR.ussia-c.RiVer,
8 Wa.terShed-tO brovicie,the'vfatenneededa, me•TA7a.te1•PrOject.
9 • It'shblild be empiaaSized that.the;onlV chanze'in the amotrat':of wafer;co;be released as
..-
• 10 a result of-tla&Water Project:is:an;•hicrease:in'releases,'from 7;;Ta...rm-.'Sprints.nam on,Dry
, • :11'; Creek (lsalce:-SOnotha.). The. Water;51€6,i et::pi--bnciSeis tio,Chan.„Efei,in the(StardS Ciii& h re:sot:di
. , ;11
. ._
•
1.2 tbiaelaiver diitersions. Accordinti-s,i Peri :I:loners have not-..demonstraiied that•ther:Water
. .
.13 `ttoiect..aeriiall9"will affect Eel Rive-'ditersiOnsby PG&E's Pot-e Valley'Prolect. or Eel
14 , R_iver.fio7,,vs: ''' • , 1 .
. . .
15 a. '' • 1Wasr..thre a..'1_,O:cyrriiii g.,Confliat" tbat•Sh 1' Wavt.'"P'-----
. .. , , • . _ --;
. . ... .. -.
, -
. .,
. .
I
.. .
;.L / • Petiiioners claiintthaf the Ea should have;disciose.d a "Iocrnin 6
.
18 bbniaidif1betv.ten,the Water Project and redu.ctions:in'E..41 River aiv'elsions. 'The"ELP:dbes. I
19 disalbfeYand.'diSciass"the.periditictrbteeding before P;1-1at concerning a:potential"czataze•Lt. .,
20- •-the,,amount ofniratel.'1368.:1',IiS.:allOwe..816 ;di:Veit 1"-i-Orn. the:E;;;IRiVeYthatOithe.„RiiSSfai-iPd'Ve-i-.
: _ I
. .• .
: • :i-
.
'7." .
471711e'._4-Crenc.\7 rnodeled"thelavailablewaiefisunniv'usf_ri C.'""AO Ve2.2.7 OfhVo-Ititc-i .'do-F.2. 1
,_..
• •
:3 ;flFinalF.F.IR.*Pnendiii-1,,conarnencLia a:',... .„,..6.:287,7] lietitibhera;db not cine, any. evidence 1.
indicating thalitlie..k.sency'-s hvd_ro.lo dical catcuriations are in el:tot: lte,,ProjeCT. Wiirl..ise 1.
24 '28,000,..k.F-17,, increasing the A227iCy's to:..31;diversi'oris from,7/5"„000"_[4:FY to :11.01 000 4,7.71 1-the•I
• firna yield.:Of Wal‘m:Sptincrs Dam 1 :0,000 _& Y . 1_AR 8a 4553-4559], 4_thotal: Ms 1 _ _ , „ e;
internal memos cited by Pen/loners obn.:.4_1-a-n gs: int A.tencyihas;atmo\iiie,dg..ed,,that mere is a
...
76 Irelationghin-betweenEel-River(dliversions and a-callable Viater'fbrintin2lly:bathe. Tfibter. .1
_ . . .,_.
Russian River), these memos'do no: consn-aite evidence7ofany;likelihood of any•DL--d'cula4.7 ;
' change in,71V? aivenions and anteapto,relate,princinally to concerns that the PV•Rmtinel
58: coulecbllapSe.,or a''PV:P data-COE-4;hp preaChed. -
• 1 1
..
. , .
— I
•
. . .
57A..T.t:IvE-.WP.OF: DECISION RNFIRET A2.;-,D. ... , .
-7 ';'01\TM CALIStS 07'4:3TION -
' . •
- •
. .
' -
. . .
. .
.
•• • .
z1- „ . . .
. ..
. 1 :t-i41-814tj The final•7212„.•:concindes -La: changescin Eel,River.flows are speculative,.and
• '
2, die Agency's.Boarcitof'Dfrectors determined criarco-ea•could raiotzae`,foreseen. These
3 conclusions;and determitianans,are. strap oned bysubstantialt evidence in the record whic..±
4 snows that fiance changes'in Eel.River flows could not be,detetined in December 1998:
5 : 'While itia,'Utyond•diSpute that 14C-a:'s -Eel F\Lille: diVersionsare•being, evaluated in an
- - , 6 ongoing.,FERO•proceents• in which more than 40 entities and individuals are nardcipatin&,
7 there is,no evidence in the'••retord:inclicathag,thatthe Agency coma have determined; in 1998„ '
1
. 8 when the FERO procee,dint would he concluded pr what the outcome of that procc:ill-tilt,-
. ;
. ! • r woulci be.
1
• ' 10 • As of this date; the'FERC 11a 3. not come to final decision re..2arding Eel River ; 1
11 diversions: CEQA dues not require:that the Agency-delay its Water Project unn1FERC
lri makes a decision. Chabantel•Gr e.e7:s• v..Cicv of C7iiila••0.sta:(1996) 50'Cai._•=sxp..4t.la 1134; . 1,
It'• 1150.
14 . The•record also shows that _•'„zency'sSoard of Directors was aware of the Hsi: I
! . 1
15, that the pencii-iiii fe.derat••prOo-terii"ncr:•.coula charir.eihe'aindunt„ovater that will be: diverted I
. . „
,•'• i
16 in-the future b 'flahe Porter talle•sr;Proj tot. [AR 1:•::518] The,exten: to'which elected.cfficlais li
.. .. ,_
17 find-anchrisics accentableig.oes,IC Me. WISCLOIn_ at tne•.decision'to proceed with the Project;a
•,.;
,
. ,
18 matter beyond this Cotit'sjuthSdicriori. rather than to me environmental impacts of the 1 i
- 9 Proj ea. River Talley c 77ese - azo7: Rrojec: vMerrop014an. Tr:nsir Deveioornent Food
•• i
. ;
i
20 (1995) 37 Cal.A.p:6.4th1.54, 168. •
, t
H • .PetitiOners asicied the Coiirt tb consider-a Wate-„••_4,_zency November 6; !
„ _ ..
7 7: 1998 filin a in the„FERC•brodetediric. Petitioners' Exhibit 15. Teationers claim this!,ri 0 CI r-nent
23 . • shows that•(.1)•the Agcyrwas?advis-4,2 FERC to avoid.Etel River reductions, and.(2) there' !,
--,,A
-,
_
, ' 1
5-17.de.YERC proceeding;has not yet-(steen complete& ;Petitioners' counsel advised the i
-
Conn: that after the Agency•approvaa the Project. .FER1C approved-tooth a Draft and a Final
. ; 26 • tztvironthentallinpact Statement for proposed PVID•inioallicationS: In addition, at
Responcient2,S•rectest. .thiS Cot:at:has taken jUdicialtoficeipf a Leiner dated August 7, 2000,
•
. :
— , from •---ERC thaistatesiFE"RC is,still undergoirig‘LSA;consultations with the National lvlartne.
• ••• ' •-ys Fisheries'Service,(NlYEI••-S), and:has not y e I scheduled any decision.
,
, • - , •,- !
. . 9 . , I
. . .
, •
• i
._.
S7.7:411----iCTENT OF,DECISION'OMFasT ../L-ka.-) .._ . • . ;
.• 1 sr-001■PD—CA'LJ,§ES:2ii A1:CTION
.
. .
. . .
. _
- ..
- .
. • . . • , . . • '
- . . . .
• .. _ .
. • • .
- . •
.. . .
•
1, 'ffras a"lOoriina,ciannict"between chanzinr.el P4ver,ilows and proviciincrenouglia water'fo-1-
; . . .
"..) -furaraigrot'fa for tne-Projecn Reznone.rs cian-ntiai-s.,conftict:Slio-uh-i,,liave been-diSt-thifs'et.
-'
, • •
. - the Waten Project:1.1R,
. .
4. • -Ho,V=Yer, asEsdiscussed abrmy.-- an airre action by 77-12.1C wae,...in'19..98-1,-tdo
5 - spec:that:lye-to analyZe in i&Me.aziirici.fdl2.-Fa.V. N674.thkandin.t.ithat_ the .Ac_rency:'s
.....,._
.
6 NOYea.ffier 6, 159_8 filincEraznially iih-ow s that:(1).the42encywas not-,a6visirig..FERVIO
7 co.natiezdly avoidf.E.el.Riverredlictioz-istla)it rather was itSelifiarondSing Scitneted'UttiOriiin Eel..
8 'Td7v;e17 diVerS/0/15 10';iiiii_iro31.e.Eel River fishery conditions ..and (;)--,based. on me ..4i2-ency's
. . • - - - . .
. • . • . .
l'o, >.T; , • . . -
9Peoltioners have:susztested tine Ag.ency,Shotild have analyze-d`the,cumuladYe impacts
1.1 ' from the Water=RrOject in ieditobilaatidn,wit the Asienclyi .prOposa1-1-.b.:FE:12.:c•ttr.ired.upe.
ljag,±7:-'srE, 1-Riy-r-diversions- 17--nbrica-- did not u-as--iz-this argument td fn. Watt.- A c'''MC
12 V
. - -and itatbeyoiadi-cionsideranion under the cioctrofeliaaustiOti of'adnain-- tve7reniedief.
Mosepter-, the.?.r.cnithent assi,ispet,that:the eney's nrdpos-ai--"to FERO.constitutes aproiect-
..,
. i that could causeLarelatedimnac: The;record S11075,:hpweygr,:that:th.eAczeiacy's--droidosai to -
. -
---t FERC 15.110T an inentinable.troj tot bilUsinnoly.one oiseyetal competinsz ProDosalS nen c
IS' in eft:a:-..the Fr:Tit:it.r_sa-,8 ai 4814],,."+"_±:facilftla:P,Petitioners-SUtteSt the/kitency'.s prODOS '5—.2 L '
..-- „,. _
- ..• -' Ire2.5Dtable-C1-12.11Ce,'of heit.2;approved.,there is no evidence to suop.ott this suciaeStion To the
. . .16: tonzary,, sUbstannal evidence su7porth.thief.Agericy's fulding.:the:`FER:Ctsiklatire:actoiti -,t'a.S.
. .
notitoresaaabie. ±ientioners,eite ti cases1in,Subtortiofitheir ar....aturienti_,In"bolfo. case,
howeyer;..tne-` projeccs?' that shoulc nave 'Deet considered were tanEible; idenri-Fi able projects.:
.
18 -notisarnialy,PrOposiis,pendingcbefore a restilaiory,' body. La Cir:z.ensliorRre-SETIVE to;Preserve
it , ilie.'2741- .•abz.27.1r:,) of i±,entuti-i;(1198-59 176; tal.A_Dp.. 3d,421-,;the Ea_rfaile,,d,,,t6, addiets
- - combined cits.nore am-polluriOn2,--idta s4brei cc: tb,e)tand ati,ciu.rennety'zbzemertysitlir.lthoikn,
opsnOrelaiSmLna.c..-rs rotaiothe,cpiat;nep.f.al:sncs. eri:usion..:. wpich',..?d,reci and..weie ;xpecte,2
. ,
' to bt. substantiaLl.: (a. 3I-1), 'Similarliy.,in,SC.??: ..Eliianciscans.,forgea,soricibie Cfi-o3y4ij t Cry'
ari4`c.-.02.17121; Of5L271:;277:a22GiSC.6(119;_z4) 151 Cal.:4-rp, 3d 61 me Es faileci.,to, eyalliae,the
. .
. . ..t.,.,,, purnulanve..micciacts.fro-m/ii2h-ristiorficabuil'a_icz-eproiects under review'tbarwere“‘as c±ose
. -— to beinniuilf aS'..the'projects-that -,7,.fetent.ne,stibietts[Oftne:!ER.s. (at 75). 'Her... ho-,wever; at
23" -75n1°...'n.ine,tlit _Affeticy.'s;IE,Oatatap'arc..7:tred,:tbe Water:Trot:tot, '-4-7:1-71C'"naci,not ytt:',Dlibliidd.2., - I
..- -.
Draft;ELP.,,illauchdess decided'wh2TlieT.01-'hairy:much tachanzeiEet River di-YerSiOn[S...
Accorbinal\. any evaluation of tile'1171D 5.C.11S from the,Water Proiect,in.cornaination \-citia the I,
-;..5- .._A±:Ieticv's or any-orTine of.her,orobefalS:to:FER:CfwOillabeil:.sheet.spectilatibp..7) Se.e,,,O.Yel,:ti..., I
430, - . !
76. . ' . _. .
I I
. !
-.77- - . • . .
. -
. .
. .
. 28 . - . ' . . . • - lik
. . .
• i
. . _. _ • . _ . _ _
. . I
571TEEA-7-N17-0:7-DECISION'OMFIR.ST:=-.-IRID • '
:S.Fictil4D riiit..1SE.t OF AtTION .
. .
.. .
, ; = Q . , •
• i („.. - . .
. .
•-- -.. • -
...
. ..
- • • • . . . .
• - .• . .
•
. .._
:1 E.1;21V,Sif,,fl:Iie:.1.22ke.,Scia_70aiiy4ter.51-1DDiy TA-7bal.4pe adecniateh,for-theAcencvrs Pro.;eic-•. evel-V.
"." With changes :DrotoSed1to PV-1:1 diversio7 c-. .
• •
3 . The,Agency's November 6 ) 998;fling describes corn-outer Model:•:nc
• 4 ' rwo Eel.River iftowinciteaSe proposals-- the Acency's'ancione other. The modeling incili.41e.-1-
-c the 1-01 ,000 AL.Thidemandsservedh.:.))/ the•-Projeci•th; otiatrhairare demands-in the Russian taver
fr.
6 watershed and state mandated raML-num smearaflows•;in Tle.10Wer Russian River MblUd./{C cl-
• 7 flows needed•for recreation [Perioners Exhibit 15, _.4,15pendites 1(:_-and S; and _AR 6:2901-
• 8 2914] •Even in the worst drought mcicieled, the-7o-protosais provide enough water far'.
-
9 propoSed increased Eelai-v-er itOwS and thenrojected,fituse 10:1000-API' demand. Thus, .
. ..
. . .
10 -there.' is no es-idence;in Met-edord of any "loomnag dongibt" betWeen the _kgency's Project
i 11 and the'.propoSalito FERC'described in Penzioners' :Exhibit. 15. Moreover, the State lAraler j‘
I
. 12 Boardhas expressly resefved j-up-snictior_ to,amend the Agency's water rights veimin flOr 1.•
i —
II I.
,
• • 13 both Lake Sonoma and'Lelc.te Men .hhocino i_f-7-"ERirithakes;a finalhdecisiocrtlaat affects Eel 1
t,
14 River diversions: 1.... .,:9: 5103,5104 511917 ! .
.1-
11
-.t• • • 1 CEQ4 does n ot reo-are-23222t* t
o speednebrnake tnrealis .c tiI I.
. 1
16 assumptions. Towarc7..cResponsibility i.?: Planning v Citc., Coon (1988) 200 Cal._=_Dp.3d
• I ...211... .
17 671, 681; V• age,Lz-ai2a•pfl'ap..-ara 3 ea.cis v. 30:27'd(21.5LID t?.71-)iS OrS (1982) 1134-Cal,A_up.I3d
T !
I
18 1022, 1030. i t`
. ,
t • •I.
• :
19 PentiOnters,the Bocturic v. Local Agene);Formation Commission (1975)
i • -
.
; •
20 13 Ca.1.3d •)(53, for•the,prOposition that the AzgencyrsTa should have adenteSsed the potential t:
• I - 12'
'71 1.-e'dinti-ons in Bell. -•-•hea diversions, since 'CllECT2A..theiatheic th•afenvirbamental review be It•
ih
1,-
• 71 _
• ' 11
. 2
_ I.
..171; - • - 'Tne Cour no-es in 1986. an eni,irormentaliatourtreouested ma-the-S:atft. "Vv are: I
Board suspend water:rights preatteclingsh DL 7_ht TATater Agenci•fshproposal to increase its use oil%
-' Warm Springs Darn water untild-ERC's-tmal Eel River„streamilow.decision. -The State i
•-•c Water B data declined to up so. normc:.•"We do not lthowv..-in ell.final,action will occir...1'
__, .. , _ - . .._.
- - 1:74,-R 9:510311 • l'•
11 26 . • 1•.•
- . •_,
.. ..
• t • 12(
0 I. -;•s: . . •
•
. I•=-.
- .
I •-
th,
I • STE.L-177.1vE-ISTT OF DECISIONON FIRST AND . .
, ' 1"i
SECOND'CATZSE5 OF. ACTION • - .
, I.t
. ..
. . . . ,
. . .
. .
. .
. . .
, ... • - -
- . ..
" .
. - . •
• . .., -'
1- ; cOnducted,,aszearly as,possible; an +rie:nlii7S1=3. 7,70qess. The fasts in Bonunt.--•in-cipived:a...local,
• 2 •atenc-y-lonnation oorrinicsio-u:+la-i-,approyed without anyt013QA:re , ajaiann.exariOfilb
3 677 acres of actrieulturalproPerry STODOSedco,be use for resicential commercial and
- rectf....ationaittises7M the nealt,,fintre: In Sp..::-Lncr. iT was cleazfrorn;the record'that-the
5 annexation of 677 acre.s:of"amriculuirall=dvvas.i goinc., to Jou-in-Ulla:tin al?hysical cbiattge.,:b
. -6 "the,:envirohinent. Therewe.reconcrete. blaTias:aiready- Midiei4;vay,te.) chthgeithe.,:iise Ofthe
.•
Drobetry- ..
_ 7 .. ._
-. .
Incont-ast, in;this'case:',however, there is no cnang.e or me rier;River
9 uroposedbythe WatetProjeci,:tbr:Was;thereia -•C-::;.e.y to reaSonably'detenuinewhat.FERC ;
.. _... . . _ . ...
10 miE_Th'it:86,-alibin the:Eell-Ver.when the WaterPrdie.ot was'apbroved in 1998. In this i.
. _. . - .
11 simation, an'ang.15,7sis.based:on speciiiatiOn•-,w.ould.',not be nie,-;niTt.sful-itti tbe':aiiblicTot-the
:It: :dectionitcalcets..."Until !FERCil;_resi]a:cleoftioni ivis.prendanire tp-undharrake etivilronnii. ental
la reyiewj-oichanzt on'the Eelai7er.
, .
b. D6e"s". ih:4:'S-A'.*:,ateriThroieot Force the lArate- 4.0-encirto take an
Position with'respect to the.rERC Prottedinac'Whill
:.• t , --.... :,......7,4? : . .- .
in tUrni:vill "result if a Si 6-nifitarir. irribaCt.bii the Eiii4onmerit":7
. -.... - .-
1:7:: ..
. Petitoners'aftzati ent on."-t_r_His pothr'n as?.r.wo elements: Flit:, PeUlonet-s
1,8 cle-lintiPaPProTi.4.s.1-"he Water.Projear-Will'30111e.r.0"CATiehan2ethe -■;,\-.a-Leif:Agency's advotaC"y •
- „
-.
19 position..±,,the-FER:C-proceeding -'3econd, Petitibters,Claimthat,losis Change in'th.f.;;Waret-
• 20] ..4.:ElencrisTosition Will'somehow:char..,ge-.):. .Rd c"-Tri vial,,deb:Sion:in stiibn,,a'Wa.-3,-,':thatiEelR:i'ver, . .
. • _ _ . ,....., , _ ,.. .„. - . •
21 :-rish aTeiadversely ariected. Petitionersk,-.221.tb pre27.7:ae::?.. 71d.entiacy. or-ri.e ara.1: irDnor.-.-for
. .
... 22' "eletneht: ' • - - .- . .
r,-;
• Nifs7,,,Pettionerz aye no: cited any-rvidence:friartiae:.Wattr.A gency'S
2= approyalkofhe 7aierProject would c hangthe Watenk yo sitonM.. t,n
e ,
_
75- FERC•proteedudg. The,Water Agency 'Las,Deer paratmaji.1-2. g.incFttRO aR‘617feI'Y'Llie,IPrPj-5:27.
...
.. . _.,
. ..
. _ .
27 .: . . ,,
. .
. . .
4
'-,. -" -
. ,.
•
. .
. . }
L'577.4TELICENTOF DECISION ON FIRIST I'L..INTv' " • Ju
• ' S'kel‘if CAUSESt0FACTION. . . •,. •
.. . .
� .
•
I n-O.ce aLnzs.I0 aecades. there is no evia ^. :that thenamr o' e Water?ceIl,- 1„
4111 ^ ;-ici n r, it change as char a-,_ a _ D '
, _ �z:•u., t?a o.c mot„ ., o-h .. _--red °s�'� o. -se ih r_ro;ect.
:Second 'PeL10''_=S:n V° not CSied any 1 ^ai'ai4horiiry for the, 7rc a Iron •
4 that C (l4 r nn, es evatu tion,o =flies:.
mpa-.s.tha"dould.__SUIh-$om a Ch? nQ in ke •
5 project proponent s advocacy position. ne ore,an independent rezuiatory agency. No- have
I 6 Petitioners cited any, evidehC°=min ,a change in tie,rsency.'s advocacy position before 1 ERC` .
7 will actually affect FERCs,uliim .e csion. Finally: the P RCCroceedins is being
.'. 8 'Conducted for the ou"')i. ose Oi'evali _.__'.caanes`to Ee1.River dig e,sions`to increase `lo—r
I
9 as to piotet:Eel J D:r,Sll; 'Pe.Lt0iler5 7a;Je not;dited any vidence that-REP is,decisib ,
- 10 resardless o wha. :it:is and whether it is affected ky th,.c_42•ency's:advocacy, could actually
i 1 have any ath erse impact on Eel'R`\er fish:, .
i
1? FERC 7S ex i sve�ursaict on to:set r,inimum stream ows tom
I=
_ • federally n s c hydroelecrsiOtroiectz. Calr bnzia'1 k EC i 990)495 U. S. 490, 506.. l'°
12- The time ane. . e for:ar enViror'1..._21.analysis of Eel River diversions is in that ; !{
. �`: .. ' = proceeding. .. . .. _ i .
10 .. If Del River diversions are onanced,_C_.Qi d j' i a
does, however, ide
. i _
i ' 17 mechanism-for saltation 0f.'Ch2ngec circumstances. Pub.:Resources Code!Section I
1 iI•
i • 1S 21166(h). Once =FRG. acts, the Water a Q ncy willbe.in,a°posilon to evaluate whetherissch
I ...
action cbuTd change the:-A' r r.Pr'o1 c: or its impacts. _ktZtna.;nme the Water-_ Hency may •
• i 20, determine to prepare a supplemen l or sd_osedueni enViiontnental.impact report. ;Prior to , .
' -11 that t m t'ic f,;OLy canSlot speculate aPoL_ or _`eduite that the Water Agency anal-vie any
%? I particular chan? oircunistai ces. J!
I, _
.
-- ... Does :t''_ Y'• c*_e . _6i Qenn '!Exercise-anv Control over the CJpe 2Pon I.
i _
,- of'the \, 9 o-- 1 Power Diversions
i
26 , •
25 .
• ' 2g
. II
S T_N E\ O D CISION ON FT .- \:J•
CoNL CAUSES'Or ACTION,
, .
‘ . ..
•- - :' t.. 't ' • - •
. . .
; . .
1, • Petitioners aiS3 6-6ritend That:the 1A7.ater Agcy somehot7 exereises
oVer'Eel RiVer:diVeftiOna: if the Water ALg.enCy:controlled.-Eel;:ki-vez diverSiorks,*
. 3 it'woule-be a: leas: theor callypossibie for The Water..kgency:to.considet charizitig.
-='' PG&E's of:elanohs tofitrovicle new ,7,-ater Euttly benefits Etion: crkangesicould :be
5 ' reasonably.forese.enqo result:fromThatlernentation ofthe.\Water'Project.therithe \W:ater
.
6 Acrenc-y-cviould:beTequireito anasi):7elthe totennil envii-d.L-thaet--&.'iMpacts ofthe:cia7aticr.4± :
7 , County Oic:Ainatc-iii). 1-il..bodo.COlitity TICitiefr A.cr 672 )?'(1:9.§9) 76 tal.2pt.4th 921.:
8; ' -Unliice the water (.1i:strict in Counry:ofAnicator-Tin-whiCh an,ir.igation
9 ais-zictsought to:purchase a[PGIL.T.: project),.tide Solicit-ha O-tinry.'"vvater A.ezenty does not:
10 .oWn Or;c6tinibtttlie.PGSEEetRiyer diVersions., The record contaitssiancontroverted
'': !. • 11 evidence:Thal:PG&E••hot the,Ware:Agency, owns and:oterates-,..the P.VZ BeritOners.-do,not: ..,
12 aisaitte this fact butiiistea:d asser that me'1PC7a.ter 42-ency.iia.a2,someamspeciped•natht to i
•t
13: ' 'conti-ol;thejP"\,tioV,Virth.e. 61 a 11965 conf.ac.nwith PGS/E. A 0.entra1 descr.innbruof.th e. 1965
-
14 ,:conract. irs back_o_tound, ma me 7vvE...ter;_41.tenty's restorisibilitieSV:dfder the:C-cinitact-"at't
dik I
15 ' desdribeclin'the E . LAIR Sa:-.45i1,7]: 7.rne,,conn-act does not-,byn,terms trovide;tb.e. tiVai-2.1'■.! I ..
, ..
lb _kzericy.witia any tarTicular conoll over Eel River flows'ori:any,amount Of Eel,P./Vez water.
• '';1,7, ,Not does the retord dilabld-se:canVt.hin a that wbtlatindita.te. That PC-SCE I
,1 8 andlThe TgatetAiencVintearcrezed-the coniraci to,allow AGencv to conntl:PS-SCE:Ts Eel River
_... .. ,...__ .,.
•, " -19 ' :.diversions or,;mam-PeaLE nad ever OF WO'21,i- eve- provide:-The Wriazei.-.422encv with any tli
20' tarticularamouzit of water:pursuant That contract. MC/Ltoyer, pursuant;to Paragrath,D;of
I
; -2,1 ,C,OnZ-2.C:., any '.4 7,ate:-Agency rights are ex.pressly subject to,nmr...trous rsigtificant
22 : contit 0-ericies„.precluair.a- a.daitionaLzel Paveiversions,:hatinteriereL‘vitf Op:increase the.
. ,
. ,
. .
-. ' -
--. . •
. I'' •
. .. . . .
. .
A-)6 .. .
. . I
_. • . . , .
.LV. . .
_. . . .
28 '
. .
. .
. . .
I '
c2-7-1eT OF DEc'ISION,ON'FIRsT,liNT., - -
.
1 gr--.Q..7,d2 .I.IS
,N,TDIC3:.AES ()FACTION . . I
I.
. ,
. .
. ' . - . • - . . .,, V
. .. .
. .
•
. •
• • I' . ' -
. .
s • cosisHor4PG&EIs oterations.sresul: ir. viola:1672 -Tc;P .-c:.7's777-RCiicersse, or diVer-5war. .77 N
•
• • '2 without lawfiziwaterrischts.s
. .
- .
— - • • This Cornn.has exarnited'the administrative recordI.and conclude.t,f2..--7:
. - 4 the Water .4.:gencyhas never Ietifertise-A oontrol over the operations of P3S.r7'S Pother V.,..1,1ey
5 Project. Net cat-i:be•COfibluded front titis fecord that the•Water Agency could change. ,
6 PG SzEI.s.e2:1Enns...Eel'River Operations ACcordincriv,.there is no.lbasis on which.+Isis COUZI .,
' 7 can conclude-that iltie.Water_4.-.2enc--- has the le.nal ability to, change PGLE's Eel River
s -
8 diversions and...thereby"create erivironme.:=1 nactS in theEtel Riven9
' . •
. . 9 2: .iisither:Ea .der."5.Cie..r.u.13ecaust-it doesi.not ConSer an.Alterfative to the
• t .
i 0 - . . Water.l.PrOiec:-.that would Restore the; Ee..I..River? •
- 11 . ..C.EQ4,recithrest.haz -csn Ea tt:alua.t.t.a. rang.teof reasonable alternatives tryhit.th
"7- f
- • . i .
. ..
- , 12 would feasibly rain MOST of:lie-basic o jecriye.s 6fthe:project.- CEQA GUidelmes Section ..1..
. '.".
13 15126.6. Conversely, C.":84Q4 does nor rechre atialVsis of alternatives which 4o no serve
- .
14 proj e'er ObjeCTIVeS: Morppver, anELP., nee..dtor consider:en alternative, thereffectbf‘Qvhid}.. •
. . .
. .
. _ .. . . . ,
15. cannot oe reasonascenrair_Hed.. c_.11.--drsh. e....uTh--;-olementationItt wnicurvvolud be remote and: .
16. speculative:.Rio, FiSEC. 2:7a7,77 Bureau. rfehrer.1),:-Count:.of S 6 I a?zo..(1992) 5 Cal.Apt..4t1-_, 3.51,- I. :.
• .. - -
17 378. The record shows that me Objective of the Water Agency Water Project is to provide 1 ..•
'
, 28 a safe, econOmical, and reliable. water-supply-to meet defined funne-needs in Water Anency-s
_
.. ,
• ::- •
.
19 service:arta i.n.,S onOnaa anchiviarin counties. III_AP: 8a:4539.]
.....
.1
..: , s.. .
- .
I !
. .
20 . .
- I • •
• . .
,
- • . . ... • . . . . . . ,
. .
• . -
....
.i.het,record snows ma- the Vrarser'..-=_ZeliCV souzhz:Eel River Water:rizhtS froth-the.ST.are.
'Water Board an Decision 1 .T.. z.....dopted,on:October:5 1972, iI--ias'denield.,suCh.ria-hts:
I I 74 ,9 ..
t-Ven assiiminz, arguenda, :ha: the Water_-)s.:0-ency had .ome riatht to conn-61..the.PYP, .
_
— •. 2-7. there is'ino evidence in the.record that:the...'Water Troiect-proposes.or could,foresetio testi:
_- .
I " ! in chancie.s to PGS:_tEIs.diversiOn:s. .,. . • . .
_
1. 2.6
..
27 •
. . ' ,
.
I •
. . .. . . . , .
0 I. 28'
. .,
. . . .. ,
. .
STATENEWT.OF DECISION op - .LS0. . ,
SECOND CATISIELS,O.F.ACTION -
1 - I i
.. . . .
•
•
1 Petitioners ante that GT--Q:4... rem,4rns'the3Water_A_cency:toievalu2teia7.1 •
2 : altematiVe,projecrto restbn Eel Puce: Ho eve:, Petinoners.iaid not suggest. evaltia.„
3 of thisIaltemaTiie,diiiiiiS-. tne,E12:nroceed:Lnsis and therefore, undezthe docL-rine of e,criausdon.
'67 remedies:.has waived the croDernanityro do so , Exhaustion,ofia'drainistratfterremediesi:t
jus&ctiaretquisite to a.lay,fL LILL ci...LLidenmr_z a.,Cr_:QA geLe=anon. Pub-Re.sources
6 CodefSec:Ebri 2,1171-, ,In pr4s- ctil2r. an acton niaynot.be ibrousfhtitin1ess]The2allezeis_-rounds
;forsoncomplianceirwithca-QA v.fere:presented-16 the agency orally orin wriU:122: Pub.
8 Resources Code TO 'cèterthne wneer an iSSleIVaSI,.propetb ‘raised
during the ariminisTative;Proceedinz. thai auesdon is whether it warraised a:sufficiently
10 sae:fib:C.Way, so as;.to-alertthe aaenc Iy. to faeLfeted to'respondt'153,prodUcii%additional:
•
• 111, , evidence, €561aiianbn See 'Coropa. iorco :&14:liec4,SdriooPPfstrier y. 'cizy of
- • ,Cemo72d (1.993 Cal:App.4fit 9E5,,997: -■471-151e,general conc:erts were raised.ciuri1u.sythe.
13 enVirenetItal revie7,7 about the State.;,161.,:fue.E5.it and"zenith-hat of Of atian .res to
- I hr
14 :Ponta:,'Valley, diversions,:no 6-n2g:es:ion-Qv:is. ever made that Me:Water Azency's alternatives
1 o ana1S7sissliould.oe expan deo'to c:onsider,2an al't±17have oroje.:c: tharw.billd,use,take.S oho*:
16 reserves to.r.e.i5labe;ELel„.RiVetHdiVertiOns.'" General environmental criticisms are,hot. '
.
17 .sufficient to',exhaust. oneIsr,".drninistrarive17.emedies. Id.
19 t.
infessence; the "rio Project" alteMariVe does attalytte,a,nrojec:t altemanve foal:would [
no ...use,..the 26:000,4,37Y of water to serve me cr owth.that is allowed.under,me water'
_ .
carirr.actorSI I-aspect7dt 2:eneraLpia.1:3.
I I P efitionersi SU e St-712.t,inc V\iat.e7 Agency wa-,somaow aware or of
restorma:tne zeitto its'narural conamorzwriacLake SOnoma:varer„citinss. a,1,995 -Water
Agency rebon that ciisciissed altemarives.7.6:continueci Ponetalles: fadui7 operanons. The
mscussfon fmtne,I99o,report care.LI oy'Peanoners. novievenlrelates to n.sl-Ls;associated wita
25 abandonmen-LipftleiEel'IRIVer dersions,,I42,1.-23: 13359), nof;theY.reductionS::',Iin diversions
.
' being totitemplated b) PERC'7)6; • I
•
•
:8 101
•
STI.A,TEJSC7NLC.2F,DEL7,-.1SION:0 .t72 ,
•
SECOND CWSELS01-' • .
•
• . ,
... . .
i • . .
. . .
4 . .
. -
... ,
EI•er, assuming the issuecwasitireterlY4Mised. PetifiOners'fail to:sT-T..,,w
A I . „..
4 that this a.lrema.nve4projettityould accomplish theWaiemAgency's.project objectives. NOP', do.
3 ,Pealtioners,show suCh• amalternative is feasible. Wanmoritic_7s.Dam was consmictec to'
1
4 provide a municital andind1.1s1-Ti2-1 water subtly: Itsm.:atersupp.ily is dedicated to municipal
- 5 and indTistrial use See. Ha, 00ai-,.:,. 50720772g COLOZZ:17::Warer Age:he:21i,,81 F.3 d 1465, foothete-S,.•
_ .
6 cited:at AR 82.:4518, andWater Supply .k.c.t. of 14938, 43 tl. S. Code•,S ection 390-b.
7 Petitioners hayenot hdWit how W124--m String Datawa-ter could be,used to provide for any
. .
. ... 8 losses that could occur, pardbularly•to agriculture if Potter Valley Project flows-are. re-that-ltd.
, 9: ..3. Did the:Agency Define its?Proiebt:Too Narrowly?
•
10 _Although nOt:discussed in its pleadings or briefs or anywhere in the
11 ' administrative record-,.at the he.arin2 .Peti-donersjciaithed that the- Tater Agency violated 1 1:
. - • 4 14 I.
if
. .
. . . 12 CEQA by defining its projeCttoo.riarrowly. For th.esame reasons as discussed above. tlite.
13 Colin finds S12.C11 u.nhmely Clam bacred since Pethioners failed to,er.thaust their arininistative i
I. '•••
14 remedies. IT should be:emphasized that there is.no.eVidence tha,-.the.Petizioners raised this • -•
- 01 •-15 issue during.thiEal-pr.obeedings.
t 's
i •
. . 1
.16 Even assunaina.Pentioners did timely:raise:the issue in.a tirnely-fasliior_, the
.. - .
I• Id
— • , • 17 Court findsthat the,Water.Agen.cy,•'s DLO/eor.:destriptiOn com-clies with CEQ_4_. icne Water
,
... . 18 AcencydeEned the projectifas invoit'ing increased use of the Russian RiVer'Project: operat.tat.1 -;
• t 1 — 4'::
...
• 19 Lake Mendocino,without,any-c'natige in releases but•increaSing releases-in storage from flake
I
20 Sonoma as neededrOMeet:Project dierriand. [A.2. 8a4558] Petitioners.assn that at the Water •
Proiecv:should instead have been defined as "a 11MM:7-21project involving conuicriVe .4
•2-1 operanbn Of Winn Savings bara-, Co vote barn?and the,Potter Valley Project " Petitioners. ..,
. .
23. .claiM- Mat as a result of_A.g.ency's.precise definition-of the Water Projec":„potential imicactsi• .
6n the Eel River were ignored. . . . .
4-,.-, - • .
. •
.
•
.
, .
1)6:
. .
. , . . .
. .
. .
27
• &
4 )
. . .
• 28 • . • . •
. . .
• ... :,
STi,..L.z...IvE-N1 Or DECISION ON:-TIRST
. ,- •- .-
SECOND CAT:JSIESKF4CTIOc.
• ,_ . _ . . . . . ii , - .
•
•
•
• -i: ..unnet CEQA, a•-orpietris deraned.a.s "aaaattiyits--tVh.,.'cit-May tau-Se.eit:ner
,direct-ohysiCal,,c7HPrsse in the en-viron.inient, Or a teasOnabli. foreseeable inciirectinhySiCal 111-
chato.eiin.the environment 73 Gal Re.s6nrces Code section,TrOO5-,. The CEQ
4 Guidelines fireher.hefine,thater"'Drollest:- to mean'thasvhble the:attion7' thatmay.
result ma PhYsical change to the en751romment tE0A GU:idsines Section 1,5378(a).. The
tetten “Ptciject" is Sven a broad,•defE._:5tion under.CEQA.in order torensure.-4th.FT.-
7 etnironmental Considerationsdo-•nat become submerted'belsOppins_-,a large,proje.cz:into'
8 manv:1iftleiones each with'apotent-fal ittip acre',Oh them iironment; whiChtunnalarivel may 7-
9 have clitustrous consequences " '23:11bank7Gle.ndale:Pasadena 4.ithortc4uthoritt; y, .F.Ted:zsie.r
•
10 •(1991),233.•GaLA.pp.3d 577:: 592
•• . •
Gi-LQ_A:-Goes not71-eat&-"ethetWater Atrency .consider environmental effects o+7
1 2., ;13,GL-.7..."-.1:s.,„,tiitetrecoetaticindf'Pbt.ter Valley sincalk:haSynot--,beati Sleb-,WE:thatisuch crEeration 's a
13 re.asonably"foresecable conseauente of.the Water-Ptoject or tha antylpheraticinv;i11.1.at:Itti.
14 'cliariathe scope or nature of the 7,7at.er Proiect:Or its'envirothiettall effactS See Tour& I:
•
. . • is He.?kiirs 1 SZ07.r , at 396. The fill12_75::operation-of:150-8±E's ''Otte.r.Yalley•Troject is not
17.6 releVant tu.the kgency's WaterTi.O.:eat ottause.the.princi-oalf.source of the.wate:r for rue
-
1 7, VvIatei-a.6j tot is Lake Sonoma; the Water Project does no-CinvOlvaany-chariczes to the
- . .
. ,18 operation of the Porter Valley Broie-ct.',i and the.:Wateit_kSzet.c.57..haS:nd control over the
- 7-9' ,operatiOn of,P,G-EiEs potter Valley,.?tojett. InSte.a. theop.e.rai-fon o5P,GLFrs:P
.. 0 Project isyappropriaiely consicitted as tart.of the a...Listing baseline4seL7ip...g,,and'is adeauately
21 -discussed in;the for the Water Project
. -
-"'4. • T.4717,7taCEQ2=1..Ghidelines s-pecify that thephysi cal envircitiMentalleondirions„a. therte
the•Noticaof Preparation is published will "normally constitute the
• 5. conditions oy-whicn a lead agency ceterthines Whether an impact-is Significant."
55 'Guide:inlet:Section 15 t25(a .. The Wates-Aszency',s etecisionta use existingtoneuticins as rn
beselinap7t7Y-si5al„conciinbas for the 77;ater IST0j;Ct;as.isppoSeditc7Sothe.,Spech4atvareducacn7
26 •
• -I
•
- 7
• _,.
128,
• STATE\CI'N'T.T OF;•DECISION.01C; F21.ST Lz....NTL)
,S"PC±5.ND CAUSESf.O.FAC-TION •
•
. .
, .
. .
,. ., . .
., .
. .
'-- -
. .
•
In arithiiOil.:the.'TETP_ ?locis rtn77.i'd=inrw tin4i)irnja.,--tz-;oc.--?i-cli,arino- a firriii-nri
- • -2 resource to a nar,-cular, use The Ea alearlydisclosestathe(pupac arta aecision maltert tit-.+-•
.-
. 3 using Warni-SP.-nn as Path wa±5.::- fairfuture 2.-tOwth'Wouid "1-e:sult.in a permanent or•lotio--:-it-;
4. corrn-litmentof wat.erthat,tni zit-otherwise.be available for other users, or be necess,n,to •
5 supbort nslieries williiife, and rina_-ian habitat,and the natural envirbnrnent." T'r e E . • ,
6 ' concluded, however.'that st.:Ch:sificaritancl unavoidable impacts were necessary ii the
• . 7 ' projectobjecnVes wete•to:-be accomplished, [AR 8.4:4880;) The locally elected officials
•
• 1 • 8 considered flus.,,caTrntMent'07:Water and concluded, it-their independent judgment: that
. I.
9 norWiftissandinz such sigiffitant and unavciidable.;impaprs: oyerinding'consideranons. • -
. ,
, ,.. . . -
. 10 warranted approval:6i the Water PrOj?..CI. .E=3.. T...514, 580 ] These overricii.n2 consider janons
11 , includid',enslaring,a4Ptillate:water suppues are.ay.aih.i)le forF;Planned..crrowth, and-activities
• 1 . : '-'3"‘tec• -‘&.'
I 12 such as fire fraatinzi.pennitn.n2 ill use of Wan 5-pring.S;D,Pri and avoidin-2 a tbiendal`‘no ,,,...
. - 13 project" lost of3.8 .1511liO4 dollars. •
- . .. ,. .. . :
. . 14. . In ins situation it atipears that-the Petitioners' real complaint is that. they do norj
15 approve:of the Water Project Petitioners cite no authority So-the proposition that CEQ[4,1 ..
. . _ - -,. -
i.
16 requires a lotalls,-ejeCt:ed-boarcl„to de..--.7elop a.paraciilar,pitbjeCt. A local asfency.arenerally has
....
. ...._. , .,
,..
. , 17 broad disc:renon to.rdecide%the SCODe of a:Piab4b-btaiebt.that,it se..eics'to undercalte_ Althois2h I
18 Petitioners lz,otild nave preferred me _4lczenc-y.'s Board.ofDirectorszejett me Water
. , .
- . 1
1 • 19 Project-and can---v out a cii:-Leren.t.proiect , CEQA does itat So require. Nor does CE'Q_b.. 1 ,
I ;.,.
- ' *-)0 authorize courts tosubstittize our'ind_a-.7nen: for,that ofthe p,eople and their local'
-, ..
-1'1 rePresentative.s." Cir..frehisTiot CT-61:et.s Variev -1.:: .6.6a7:d of Sloprvisor: (1990).,5-) cat Zr -7
, . .
22 .564. The cars havetreto•c777.ed that the wisdom of.ap-orovin2 a project.is a•dellitate tasla .
. -
.
... '23 .whibla re4titet. a.lsalanc-:iiit Ofinterests, and such balan-cma is necessarily left/TO the sound • :
2 A; 0
,
. ;.
25 in Eel River dive,rsions,.v,Tas.not an. abuse of,e;iscretion.. - •
76 .
. .
. .
, .
.a. , .
" .
- . •
. . .
! . .
. .
: . . . .-.
STA...T7MEST.0171.11iECISION.70/C.icFIRIST._AND .
-
S=C01■1-12.,cr.i.USES'OF ACTION . I
' .
_ . .
. . , . . .
- ..... .
. •
' . .
...
1 "disrteidon of the looa1officialsiand-their,constituents who arer.espor_sible for such decisibric.
7, Id:rat;16. :Under CEQAL, thisCouit:s fanction a's not to "judgerche wiselomofithe,agetb3;1111
.._
3 action :2DDTd‘valttrthet.Ritjec " bit:Le tly m ; age... 4)?•
. .
4, 461167,ved Mei:tiro:et :roped:In-es and .nether there is subslantiai evidence suni-)07.17ing. the:
3 adrency.'-s detefri_thethon.'' _River Zie:t.,IP7-e.servan on Project:pi Mezropo -'litah`Trifil,:s--ir
. . " 6 Dc-volovm.eni,3 oard':(1:49 )'.fi Cal-Abb.4:111-54, 168:.
, ,..
• .
4 - Must the',EIR be:RecirculatedBased on•Recent ESA Lig:in zs#of Two: I,
• ,
. . ... . i
Filo S Soeaies :in;:he•RusSian River?'
9 PentionerS 2:14.271e that,:c?..:QP. -.7equires.,re.:faitiilation,oI the WateicPro.je.:(Ea
.1,
. 10: :because:the-FiHal Eatcontains;updslted,information regarding.:3-wo fiSh species, steel:ethanol ''
',: ., •
11 , : coho Salmion. The D-aft.ER iiiditatedtfnes&two Speaies'Were:being;pOnSidettect fonlisTing:, ' •
12 'under the federal Enta..v_c_*e4Spe.cies Act"(ESA.), The anal ER indicates these two specieS' •1
• ,
. • _
1 3 ualy thaVe bt listed,asieatened'specieS id he R:2513E Pdvet:uode 'hS A ..,
- .
I A An.rill1R niiistbeq-e.:3-sctiiasen irisizriiicant'new information(i S added:to E. .
_ .,
1:5' ,Laiki.9.1.-HeighTs:12, P. 1125-1128: info=iationis,considered sio-n li-Tcani,ifits sudden
'15 : B.:bpealface. in;a:•Firial ELIR.deptiVesrfnen14blb of a ride. nlp tm_m1;..opnorrunity'ito Icomment-on a
. ' 17 'substantial adyerse zei:V,irositchte."1,iaro act-Of'?:proj project 'Public Resources,:ade-Section'
1,•8 ,21092.1: IL ztia,tilleigilts..11, p.. 111 26, The.• Water..,s_genty,'s Soardpf Directorsconsidei-ed;the
.. . - _ .....
. • . ,,, •
1,9' ESA listings of these species and found that:information abbut. theseilisnnzs,didndt 7
.. ,
•
20 constitute ss-nlficant:new informaidon under-CEQ•Al, because:lie:illicit:nation lin"ti:e. •...ta11. Ea
.. .
• 1 , abolittlieliliSting ano me exbanc.e.:a anelisisis ol,me.DotentialrfoTibatac:SI,On these two St:tales .;
••
• — •
• .
•
- - _
• , .
, 1-iPetitoters also identilipi'menao from the Depart:nen-cot:Interior which questions ;
•whether'exisnit'summer,minimurn :lows in trie;mall-t stem:Riissiati.River,Maybe„Tochhiah..
[Pieritioners do:notterolainhowtthiSkn.lemo'brpvides sUbstanp4eVident.e'dfaiti.ininf.c:that, ,
, • will beicaused.by,the new Water:Prole::: :SeerCEQA. Guidelines"3 ecnon,153 84.,
• - .
. . . .
' 111114.
27 . . . • ••
• .- .
- . .
28 , . . . . .
70-- - -
• 1 .
' • I
SILA'..-TEIvEl\CI: 077:7,D:-CI.SIO-S1 ON177,.s,itL22.73 .1:-.' • .
I SECOND;CALSES'::OF'ACT:jO14,
_
. . „
.......
. .
„ . • .
. . ,
1, ; did not Cir.:PEE the deterruriaton that the Water Projec t would notbave a•si Enifican:aavarSe
, • 2 I-imPalet.On those,spe-dies.:,[Sie:ALR 1:382, 3'87.1
• 3 h aCrency.IS,.#dina; that a s:inPl....smental Of subsecnient E . is Unitietecsarg;.Must.
-
4 be upheid.if.r.herecord as a,1AlhOle, contws subStannaleVideriet to-Shp-port a deter,H4rtatior.
2 that,the chancres.in'the.-proj ec7217,72E-7.:T±OT]so I siabs-aal':)as to reou.ire"inaj:OrT 1110 dill C'an oris•TO 3-
6 • the previous.review docirment-- Bovy-rnan V_ Ci'Cy of P es-al-Lima;(1986) 185 Cal.A.pnI.SLI 1065. I:
- i
1 - .. „ ' ' • .,1:.
7 Save 1075. 'St Francisco Bay...aissz..,v. San Francisco Bay Conservation Corn. (1932) 101
.. -
• 8 ' Cal.....kpp.4tis 908, 934„1,: •
. ,
, 9, The Board's determination is suppioned,by,suCh subs-anal'evidence:. There.cord. I..,
10 .tefle:.-.:ts:that-the Waireit`A:sretitypi-er±td an el.:ten.sive evaluation of the-Water Project's
.,
1 I potential to impact Russian River fR•heriec , This eyaluadowtook into Oonsiaeration the fact
12 that the federal goyertutent as consideritz.listing-theSe tv,76 fish snecies under the
-
13• The Water_kenCY,'-.5 valuation was fLthy discloSed.in•theDraft Ea. [See AR8A:465:-
. .
,
14 4692: 5:229-1;42577.1i The Einar ELR. included an:Updated'analysis of the Water Project's
1 D potential to maisa.,.tn-se„sp....cies anc LIS 0 MCitifie-2 information a-Cont.:the recent ESA listm;.us,. .
lb. .. .-- • 1 • -- ••° - • ... I .;
; - - 16 but reached the same conclusion as me Draft.ELR's—that:the WateU.Proj tot; -would not have a
_ . 1 I
..._ .
- - 1 -
..17 substantial adverse impact..ot„the listed Russian.River fish species.
„ .
18 . '-' . PeilliblletS do not challenge the iec;hnildal'a.dequacy of the Water Agency's
19 biolocrical analYSis. Instead, they;azinie that the ESA listings somehow crap=Ted the physical
! .
- 20 impacts of the VI:a_ter Project.. -Trais 24.-nin-eat was rejected if Chaparral Greens V.: Cry 0±11
.
. . 7 1 , (.7z:21cl-is:C.(1996) .50 CAini-,4thi 1 -2.4.I.,'-; 1'49-1 1-50... it"that cast, the C011it held,faa: an
ESA.iilsdric-,had:no bearinz on the ipac t of the project where, as in this caSe, the,..priciect
7; impacts were Lica:6.1c;figly asc..4ssetii-L- .:±2.:_.--a.•i= • ,
. •
‘ .
•s disnissad.aboveLtheliVaterProie^t has.no:',Unpact; on tne Eel River_.atcordins-lv 1.
_.....
' frie..„..4.0-encylliad,iio oblizatiot,to dn°Mee La:Or/tan on,zbaut the:ESA-listing of Eel 13,.ivtr ' I. A, •
-,..-36
. .
,
.
- .
.
41): ! : 28 ,
.
..
.
'
_
-
STIC---.1vENT 075;DEC.T:ISIPN OFT .:La..,--D
,
' • ' ST-taND'iL24:USIE.S101:"AC71:101c7 - - - •
,
. - • ,. . ,
- -- " • _ . . . , . • •
. .
. .
. .
• •
. .
. ..
. .
• • .
., .
; . .Pennoners'crte A i i i,2 Monre .1:27ornoowners'LAfss?... v. Cozznzy„of Ventz.:7;ci(1985).
• .. .
_ . .__ . _r___ ,. 0
'2 165•Cal.Ant?'.-3d 3 z.,7„fOr the-nranbsi-don•that•-2Lhe.ELIC„shaulenaye:bee'firecircular.to.•TO
.. , .
address th,,e•-a.eki-,infprraation'reza.ri-iirl a.1-11 li'snhcaof centain species tinder7theE•14,.. Kira
.-
-4' :ivienite.'is di.int:(2724..Shable:,,on.it -ffo• . tf„!AAcir.../.17'.k.nht6,.the totrr.:ftundfthava. sUbtermeht
5 .(ttasrnecessarynecause,le cDiiittci of Vennaza.-(had resar7C7eyed a,rtnjet-...t Eite.nribrjo cettifyine;
•
26"-• its,Final',•EE an&discoVere&onelof-ihe:istreets;in:the proppsed -1. odiyision:would naye oyez
. . .
7' •,,p aft of f--athieraetlandharea, centart.„-tb:tae:assunabnons itearding the'wetfand.S. ohvihieic
8 the Em-had betia:;ba:sed. The"d.z6azi:concluded mat this newly eyidence:invoived:,u,
. . .
.- 9 tstibstantal chanze'lh Circumstandes'nfrde..r:PtinlictRlesourc'e.s,Codt;§;21166'.and GUidelines, .
...-. 130 )-§*-5162 ahofthatZ.Sfalificant.itadflpefi'fae=wetlands'-wkotild t;,.. inOreciteitre man
'-•• - _ , ..-•
...
•,'•:-.4$ : '''' . , . '-,--,•-•.ier...,-..-;:4
11 preyipti,§1Tre.c6047e,:f.by the ELIR: Mira 11;fonie...-57zpt.D,364: However, as discusseda.b6%Tei--,,,
I'23 'the or. hishery species utd.ef fue.;ESA. does not constitute rsuostaniiat evidenee,.of a
.
• 1!-3 change iti•••tIad initict Of the,Water Siiinni,,,,i:Proiect.
, . .
, -
. - -. . • - . ,_ ..,
. .
. .
D id' ne EIR kdesna•.tey AddressheGr o ui d
- hdadin_nniCanlatve.
•
....L.,
. .I.O • impacts crr fries Vv,ater-tfOiect? --:
•
, .. .etiUnieri ckaitencre. Me adepuac.Y of the,,Ea's own?..•ranalysis.ah&-the ET.R.'a _
- - • , • • '
., • - 1,7 tunatilanYe‘Timpact:anlysis, at times,nombri'n.q.-.(these arguments. -..CE`gAOontir15 separate' . I
..--,
. .,
.
.:- •11.8-' -requirements 'for:-analYyse'sora-proiect:'sj27..ptr.h:ipactQkQiii'd.elihes',Secadt.. , -: ".. ...4::
-1§, ;•151115...gi.2(d)) aria acnro3°C-C;s cutritilarivedmpacfti(CEQF:Guidetines•,$egfiolii 11$dif30 (C)). This( (1
-
20 Courfconcluds me recor.a.- that the Water Agency s E -;•oroyides`1e.cralcf.y. adequate
. .. -
i•;l',3
. , . 1-)1 as-us-ions of:both is.-dos •
--i2- a Does P tIETR.A cecuatey _k.ddresS he Groh-Induding..:Inracrs v
-' .-
, .
• I
- of The. Water''Prnie-Ct?
. - ..1-•'
. It-
• _ . .
_
' .
. i. .
' .25 ., . ' „ . , . • . I•
.. . .
r.rfiSliery:in Its!Elat.
•-r6- - . . • • 1
. .
. • : .
•
• .
. .
. . . . . I
. .
. . .... .
.. . -
. . _ . _
ST.,K2TEN4.F.2v77,OF0E91$10N'ON..1-TIRS7.42-.D.' . - ±
SECONDtA.USES.OFAttioN.
•
. '
. .
.
3e S�ated.pL�dS �_ y la IIr�]e is IO .OV.Qe"th ?n10' Ilt C
of
V.'ater:that'1S_"fiecessarytart the Wa r Agency's con ac ors to:serve the popalatlin'.. brow •.
allillorited ±tthe'e-insting.azprO v . _genera_D lants,diticie sines'arld`h Cou ty o Sanomais
i a '—ere
The !-,1R aClu'�10'wl d °_,:pup vur'.2 �v �a c� �!'a� Di Oje 0 . _grOv, l _nuiioin g;
• 5 nder'CEQ , CEQA" Gidelies 15:126.2(d),;',17:=3. 8a 4808, mow However, he C� A
L
6 Guidelmes so;;-not identify ary pa. uia_ methoe.`oi analysis oftErbwth, and two leaw:in;•
7 CEQA comrnentatorrS; KostlRa.apd ?ischit e, conCiiud .that a _general analysis is sufficient. 1 •
8 Practice:Under.the-Czliforiia Environmental.QuaiityAct, Section 13.50. dw
9 Inuns!case, tie aTowm-irnpactsLthat would result from the increased, !'-
t • 10 population.autfiorized&under t'ne apnucabie general Plans were.anziyzed to a large extent oy
. . 11 incorooranon by reference of the county s and-dines' general plan 'IR's, a method expressly
12 permitted-by!CEQo Guidelines•Secnon 16150 (a):. Section 15i50 (a) provides:-
. I.
' -13 An Ea.. .may moo rpo a bi reference all or Dor10ns:of another i; -•- - docurn nt whl n in•a th- arcer,aftubliC tebbid or is Qenerallti available:(—co I'_..
14 �e bublic. Where z? or pan ofenother document s incorporated oui - . .
f nc_, the mcorpo aL d lan_guage shall be considered to oe set forth
• 15 in full as pan. of the t } t o:ih EW :1 '-
I j_
..1 6 _ Using this-men nod, to 'ater a:gency'S . TR inoOrporated the exisT_Ilo. •_.
•
, '1.% general plans for its service•area•and rue environmental C4ocu m rs prepared to disclose ate ,.
1_7;18 .environmentaiimpa ps•that could result 'o- the'adoption.of each plan. [See.kR..8a: 4798- : s•
. 19• 4803 a21d 11 63 1=886 ] The ina 1 =ff al n
so s' - maa W d the Water Project's w
Tro l_
20 impacts as,including `'increased`- a� inc,,-,..s-- c emanas'or expansion of facilities -elated 1 •:.
I
_ u 1' IO Dllb11C n r '1Cea and Z-12n�t1 c ' ( ]c ud 7g.„v ai supply, �.antew'a� _. ams 00 d _ ri I l 1
22 S . J1c5), loss Od raOn Of biCa. esoes: nsOr egradat "o_:SCenic r source_r:aid da , d n
, .23 increases•in.noise d gels." [S e1A_p Ea 480. .i_ • . _ _
7n . . ••
:5. 1'P titionef d0 not Cheri.. 2 n V,' e 4'zen 3'5 oalcu!a nOns Of how mllch'Cvat Will I..>-
-; y b., needed to,sery these,ve dts..popLla ions.
26 1 f. •
1 --7 . .
••' I 28 - . -.• -
: . , ,
.. - . . . . . ,
._ - 1• , f i. IvENi Or^D CISI ON O> IP` ,.=?STD I••
• . S7CoND cAUFS'OF SG, 1.91
.
• . . ._ •
.-.....
. 1 •
. . -: -•
. .
1 , Petitioners do not Tc.Hilencf.e:tns'''•Waten:4„.,---v's methodolbeyof
1" :incornoratibn by:referenda:but.flasteadOlaird5 thiat the s pprcate.'am:ryses''''failed to deStr--ibe.
. .
• 3 combitedsirdnacts•thatAwould,reti4ltth-ormthe:sincreasing urbanizztnOn o;the7re.zioa.-.: •
- - .
. . • . .
H7. • . . .
4 " owe-ver, Penboners:dbindt;nroirTide:anyt:e-cridenee that when Oneine. ewsrthe casetissibts•of
• .-
.,, .,. ..-, . . , ._
the impacts:th.be cased by me new zroiiiaepermittedb ythe eient cretietakplanu.,lasicisclosed
. .
:6 'Lathe eitrdtsfenefraftla.t'.Eas inClndincitthe,•:Cbunty of Sonoma ait4i.Copnry of Maim general
. .
. . _
• 7 plan",filRthat Some•:ininact•is.leitl:tthevaltated. Petitioners:„donor arcicurate•What moife.::the
-. tIS 8 Water Azency could have-diSol-OS:ea '..retardinsz the.'"conibilitE"artn•Wth,litntiaens'af the!Water '
„, :0
• Project. Moreoveryto the ex-ten:tiler!. are., cotabirieElc' z,OW-clatimpacts;-:thatnai'zlattotbe .
. .. .
16- A:diThcliS•Se•d'..iii the Es for the:fele...man: general nlanst-such:iinnacs are addies•sea it:the:Water..--
,
. ._
.,
': • ---..• II.; Agency's aurriulanVe,impa:ct a,aa_IY-sis: :ld.iS cussed below. • .. -• • :„ • - , _
. . , ,
1,„: ., - - In this case because;therWater Project u &ruined expressly to provice
_
il --k only:the amounts diwater:.for the deiJ•eionmert..authotrized b-y"et,fa_stincriteneia:41lan..s for•the„
. -- • -:
. :14: recriom it:7-'2.s appropriate2forthe,Water Azencys1-11:12to rely on,theenvironna. ental ad.a.TyS•° - -,1 •
. .
•
' • the'inipatts:of:#s deVelopment tlaaralle:ady Wr.ere prepared'an4•.ariptibted'ini the E..-, ..HS fol
" .
• .i.- .
. . ., .
7,(6- '11:hoseflzenca1 k.-p1tans,,,S:eeCizy of Cannel=sr,;.qIte.,-,Se ..v:. U.:S. De p::iofPar.Sporiaiffon (9tiliejist
1 .
- - 11,7 1991) 12.3.F:3 1:12"42. 1165 (a s..Toyytin=inducin.2,- impact analysis was adeouatei:undiertt.clQA
. "
18 :*lietei-i:.r5Steftii.ae;d:Tseiieral aboa'l nli4: 1:1=Ifidtbitnents•whi6b theinselyet diSct.S.Se&zrOWft_t):
A . .
: 1k9. • '21', :
The recent det•i:3161::n.a,Coicizyo.I.Ainadori::•17:_boTtdci Caiiniy P'q-cer I, ,
1 ' 1
20": Agency (1999y76 CalAnn.4tb:93,1,,:thakeS it:61ear.fnat the 'fbroner reYieW:of 7irticant
,ii •
.:.: ..growth,i?Tsues13ocatrs in a:eye:lop/Meru or generai,nlans,,n-ot. in.EIR1S for-water projects:. li: t
. .
22. :couhr,),-o-";4.n:cid& inc couitinvalidated 2,-:;EIR for a water eat'd,esinted•tosent,e::-the
...:
23:: 'Dopuln.On.calleLDfot in,an ur-5.4donrelf szer.±-rispiii.... "[A] -Dr.oying:-.:2wanettro2-...-,arrbefane:
...
. ..• .
14. :enactina,a,ateneralp1an"places\thetruciterbia1cart'oefOre.,the 'norse." RoWeter lirlf a general '•
- . • . - . .
15'• .plan?,,calls for increated'„deyelooth:ers:-(anfinoptil-acinva*:%atetinlanideSima,edto:trneertnatneed.
. :
.... „
, • . - - • --
. - • • ,.
. . • .
. .
• .
- • .
, . • " -•
. .t.$: .
. : - . . . • - -
' 1 •
. .
4 ‘ . . • •
• I
I .
. .
I .iSTA...F.7.1\47-1\770F.D.ECIS ION ON FIRST _=Nit,- . - , • 1 .Th"
• .' '
SECOND CAT_ISES:.0F.ALCTION _ :
. - 1
. .
•
• - • • 1 .mL1-....e$: S-IithSe.." Id_:-..o.:9250, Bere. .the•Water"Pfthje.cit,y•.as,s;ecifica.liv desined totatoVid...1fn;`.
,...
./Ilk
i TV 2. water MPC.;SS2-7•Ktoser.vehile gr owEn auttlormed:,ny,,the exiszngia.noroYed.general:01221S and-
•.•,,,
3 already analyzedi'M the 1-.:": : s..for those 51.a...6s-..-: • . ..
. . 9
b.- 'Do Does me EINP. ,kdeatfatelv• Add-es s the. Cumulantie Tr-rinarrec.of rh.,-••
- .
_ Water 9701°Ctri . .
In addition to its obligatibnitO present an arialysisof growth, the Water
7 Agency has a separate'obligation under CE(, ...A. to analyze the;cumtlaidve impacts 01 the'
. . .
1
'-8 • Water Pfoject. P...e.,dtioners allege that Water Agency failect'tbinalyze the cumulative land. <•
9 use impacts associated witht:ne Water Project. Thesei-landi use 2i2paCIS are bauSed,
. ,
.,.
.10 Petitioners;generally,argue, by the grovyta of cites in the Water.Agency's sei-cibe area
• . . .
'..f.4••.?. '44., I j . . _. . ,
11 the dirisquction or of•agriciditural and othennattitaL.areas that may result.
._ ....
4: ..•• I -
P • - 1 ; -• .I;".
12 . - The record? not-SupPon-YetitiOnera'',61aiim that the Water A..adicy'S•'If,
13 ET.R.: failed to ES:16Se..thiese:jimpacts A ctimulatiVe;-initattS clitt#Stion must The...._.g.uided by
•
1 -the athndards o:nfactcaliryianEreasona'olenesIti-7: !:_,.Q.44.: GuideiMes Section 15130(o)• k -
". ' -'
,
15 general qualitatiVe.analysis.,pf.cumulative.impacts is."islifficient as long as the-inn-pacts are not
16 initimizeci priinoreE vIkLarSOrzBoar _Tifoui) 3bareti011iiirpor Comm rs (1993)
I I' . : •'..
_ .
1 . • l.f"
17 1a:Cal_Ann.41- ,- 729. 749: •
. .
18: .„ The Agenty?.s cii.m.alarive•iMpact:andlysispecifically- idemith-ed urban. ; •
. . • - -
19 and suburban deVelOninenths'one of the. reated.-projects-hatring Me potential to combine-with IT
1
i 20 Water Project:inmacts..[AR.,8a.:48:1-31 Rece.--at.e.d_jy, the Water Agency ciisclosed and discussed•fr
... .1 .
1. • 71 the rripnner.in which.the Water Proiect,"coulthcombine., with urban and suburban development I:
. . • .
• 72 to have•notenally-sig.-gin:ant.ciimulanv e:in-roacts. Cumulative:dmp acts.were identided:on
, • • 3; earth; includint inbreases'tn,Soil erosioni_kn 8L483-7] water, including•flboding and • l':
• 1 74: decreaged:Water•oualit-y- [AREa:483S; 4841748431; air, includingihnCreases in air pollution
.. -
.25 caused
- . .. . by,crowtn andrd_e.velotment alOwe4i„y ictal.i.
lat&use•plans
[AR 8a.484-4]
t
•.
. . ,.. • .
7 7 •
— . .. _.
. . .
. .„. .
-8-,
. - . '
4 •.(
. .
, .
• •
STATEMENTOF'DECIS101`.VONFIRST..A_ND '
, . ,
-
SECOND CAUSES OE ACTIO:N. . • ',"44.
. 1
•
1 • ••veetaonnwl e;nabitt., nIir,g loss e .haetta w tlanc,and v real pools;and„
.7" chancres assoctaed..with the ores nce o_ hamar-aciVit,;'ancim^reasecnoiselevels '[AR S'
3 8a:4849-4250] fisheries [' 8a ^Q ^`806], noise,[_4R 8a. '8 ?l land use including
Chang Si. esui n 0' l-.a pLcael landet-s p0l - aes and:re.-u14t o _st startling devel•ohm u ati
the Water Project servic area [AR 8a.'=`8b8] ' a-Emc [_AR;;8a 4859;`- en 3y4f'AR'8a 4860],
6. •-visual impacts,mciuding impacts on,t e. scenic-quality, of btn rs ?is..r lativeiv undeveloped
' areas [AR 8A:486i].ana long-tern fie raaanon,o th ;overall scenic auann of the area.
8, EAR 8a 483]; re-reason inclu:aing by crea-ang noise ,gene aune cast an_d alttecnng the •
,9' visual',qu 1tty'o_ tue area [A'8a:^86 "];:'and-niian on cultar= e -
Y 1,re>our s [ P.•8a.,".869]. The
10 Water AoA I s
n,.y `- �IR 'Contains r.� ,ro�,� ntal review that PeLition°r� demand, and:tnls ==- --
? me t�ttitr quired staniiar-d Of;ra,ncaiity'and reasonatileaess CEQ& Guidelines .
• 11 revs°w
12. Sectaoh,15i'30(b)r
1 ^
14 6.: Were,the SIR ?e_ br.ses to•Publto.:Commen*.s-Adequate? -
1'5 Pennoners,argue tha .me Water agency's;resoonses to severaLcomrsents_ whe
16 not adequat n Water; & ency r snonaec to, over 1 000!comments from about 100
1 /` aQencies, entities�'oups and indi iaual, in 288•Liages oii:eshons {[AR 9.5383 56 �1] he.
1€ comments cited'bt P nnoIl -;dhow , were,r ither Q neral m nanre,or called for h:`
°9' valua- ohs o ssu s beyond^the env ro hien.al rnpacrs omeater rot. POI" _•
20,. •D nnoners refer,to comments that a uu^1-Stec the'WaL r.Azency t0 evaluate; Eel RIVer,• .
21 a±V rsions for requested i he:u at-: :- c m..;"t0 tae on the;responsi ilit of aeVelop i._l Tc a
22 comprehensive snedmanatem „t nl _o_ ne r Eton. n �=`ater a: nc ;s responses s
23'', h included apt oprlaL inIOrmanon`o= s ec',`v.n1 tale re- uesred y almanon v as;tiot,includes. '
2^ or example, the Water.Aaency responaea
n mate Water,Proj , t'nad`no Eel:River.impacts '
. 25 ,and;that a watershed manaaernent-pla_ Vkas;not tart o1 the 'Wat '✓,Oj'ect [&R;9.5599-5600]
76 .
27
_8' '
• ' :ST,ArTEIv1✓N1;01 DECISION ON._?1ST \
i rSECOND CkUSES'.OF ACTION'
_; . . !
r r °
1 P°IlnOII° 5 c.t.. nv legal auu70=iy. to SLZv.+ t1„L-`argLII°u 'uRa;`I:II° �!!�at.°.r.Agency.uadfnn'. •
• •;, - 2' Objganon,to:es :nate:(en\nronme.. ? imca:ts not caused D3 tIl `vate, ProjeO ?Vg.' - aserle-,. '"•
'3 Water 17,/aterAgency.repuirestro °:;Dla:in wh3'"a w aI •ned manageInent-'nlan was not'aicomnonent
.. a --... .. . ,.-. ,.
or tne`Wate-Pros . . 'ResDOSes to commentsIneed not'Dc e,nausav:and need orn to:.
•
7 demnsTate a Qooc Ii r asonedanivsi- C-,Q-i'Guidelm sSecuon 15088cb) Towards.O
6 Resonslwi7. °; P? nLg v.,C S onc iwrc ,n 83 ,
•
y
.7 :III. Second Cause of ikcnon -D'anning. Law Challenger 5.
i .'I I .8' :"petitione s' s .And cause-.of action,ass erG.thatttlie.WaterAizencyhas violated ,,
9 requirements z'oi Government Code S enons•163091, 65401 anc 6'^5,02. 1,
` l 10- Goveinni nt Code Section 3091' .nrovidsiin rele%ant Da.t-mat a local agency"Shall '�',
_ 11 comply with all aDphcable buil�ing and zon4 g ordinances of the,county-or city in wbicnith
.fx lL.
e -
12;' territory of the local agency1istsituat_d. P nnoners do'not claim,that the Water Agency, "r
.
. - 13 Ialed'tocomply' a'ltnan ' sD° Li^'county. t ;.. 1 '-"or rz.._. . g. r
s ,3 , •- o ci-v"oulain o _or..lz?_orainanca. 'Tn stea a i
I^. P ration rs clanrr that section 5309 eour s tha :til W ate:- agency'comply'wini,lannlicaole l'e't
15 Q al plans -Se non _3091 does not say uis.. ?'h,,,terms "building'and zoning-orain lees"' ,
�6 - general
16 are terms witnsp inc,statutory., m Wig: See,Government Coat,-Sections 53090 and 65800.;''
17 et`seq. Petitioners cite:'no authOrirV fOi iiiiel7r sing these'tenns Devond their plain:mean1'ng. '.
1" 18 Building and zoringworainaic s'ar not the sam =asiz n ral;'pians and Section 53091
i • 19 .mandates cOmplianc Only•wire. bull rag anc ron"no orain.ances. I , ',`
• 20 Government Code Section,6, 'C2 govrn,, compliance with.general'plans. ,Section I,
1
1 2:1 , '65402(5; gentrall p.Onihits me % �',gen ) ,from acouming o rsvosm� of real.DIOp .y 1.
doL consnli ring.Ar authOntt rag a nLLDll st: ct within a cOUnTs 'S:7u isdiption without t -
•
_ 23 .'su1Jmitting the accuis.non•• disDosaI C ,snc_ire to'ti7 aapronriate Dlanning;a°ency-for-a
general Dian consist ncy,determnation. if,the Planning agency,doesnet•repor on1;the
E
725 conslstenc} question within for ) d ' he j.DDOSal is conciusivelv:deemed in conformance
. •
1 • 28
i .•1 i S 1,e 1_IvENri OFDECISION OI IRST ND . . 1 '
. , . _ S CON7C/CE USES Or'ACTION g'.
x
1 with tae general ptan. in mss:cas , ',P.anideaprs c1pTm that to water k ency was require
scorn ttae v a e Pro'e to the'nl �s'aQ V
J ncses,sn , u bolds, Mendgcino, IcIa_-in•#d -:
Sonoma coilnn -s and-` _ .
gnat to : z
' rOl W GS':reQL,L ed TO b..:m conformity Q ifh:the •
' gene ai,plans o_'ali fo-ls'couaae The w al
.-. - S .'.g n^,"'drgll a thavi w'aS required to 51Dmlt'
• S the' ater'Project only-t ,Sonoma County and''that the Water Proie t was,found-to conform
o to the Sonona�County. Gener 'PI'an:
'-7 Govern nt>o-d 'S ciion 654.02',do es:not requite the War_er kaency to stioznst tie
• - - =""8 Water pro e'et=to Humboldt; Mendocino•or, Mann Coitnues.because there L no e�vidence•in- •,
• 9 .the,•re ord;indicann; that the War P :oj;e proposed tohacquir or cisoo selof real;prop e‘.7.y or;.•
170 .consau„t any"smuctures within,those three counties
-
- 11 T-he Ware. 'AQ ncy ac) owleeQes,t1hat the Water Project will requireacquisition of`
1_-2 real`Droperry andfcons`trucnori of fa ilitesjm Sonoma Cou w [8a:.4544^j25 ^57 575] •`.�
,1.. aIla .11at the. INate, a Qencv V.a,s ph ged`to. „tabthli the Water Project i0 me/Cbinty o SOhoma'1'
. 14 fora Qen rah plan consist ncy des --inanoM Pet toners ask this Court to:eialuate a n
1?5 ,of Sonoma County General P•Ian;Qoz s anfl oq'ecnves with aduclrLne i
J�� y.clasm the Vvater
16 Pojet is 1connt:It is not ne sc't o •the C0.1.117,;:10;engge in ttls'evalllanon;,
• I;n
1,7 hov✓ec , 'J ause the record contaL unconuovened evidence tha °asia matter o law, the , _•
37 1e8` Vvate ct is ui conformity mitt fne Sonoma County Gen ralrPlan the record,
19., 'estaDLs1 s tha th_ water •:Qenc,' snbrhitted7thet WaterPioje^tio.SonOna-Countti bit •
1
'20 October 16 1998 andtha th 'Plant �g,aoencv did not nmeertto;consid Eie:mateuntil• - t
-. 7`� 5 cemo r 3 1998 thorn man;orn Cay s'a e_. Iniaaainonto this ulcdhn oV riec°evidenc_.
noweve the^Court finds•'that me-r Did-.con:ains$substannal thaence to sutpo.4,t1ae.41.gen:y.
3oarc of Dsrecto d ermsnanon na ,fie w er P`:oject'.wa as'a e
a r matter o_ facT,,consistent -
?6 .
8_
S :YvrN i OF DECISION ON iIps ,Ly7;
SECOl'ID CAUSES OF:ACTION '
• ,
- " - a _
..
: • -
o .
r.
1 . with the'Sonoma County'General Plan [AR 1:582503;;26A-, ,8a:471,44715}16 Accordingly, '•t
, • 2 Petitioners haveTailedito establish that the Water Agency's-approval_of the Water Project . k'
3 violated Governinent•Code Section,65402.,
4 Finally;,Petitione`rs claim°,that Goyernment.Code,Section65401 requires the Water --•
5• Project to conform to the-iumboldt, Mendocino; Marin and Sonoma County General Plans
ty position
1 6 hutches nocauthon for•,that osition in either the language of the:statute or in case law. , • .
7` Section;65401siinply,requirestheViater Agencyto;submit,a list:of public works it proposes
fi
8 to carry out during the;next4lscalyear to Sonoma County: Uncontroverted evidence '
;9 presented by the,Water Agency iindtcates'that rt has<confplied wtth'the:statutory nt requireme
4 A
10 CONCLUSIONS
f-•&•,-....1„..a,!.,..,,... _e r'' _- j .4;:
: 11' For thereasons`stated, onthe first cause ofactton;,Petittoners' request for an,, , `a;'
12 :alternative and peremptory writ of mandate; declaratory judgment, and preliminary and , •
13' permanent injunctions setting aside and enjoining. the Water-Project on the grounds that ttj ?
ill 14 violates CEQA.is denied.. On;the,second cause'of actton ,Petitioners' requests for a 'r
, - 15 peremptory-'writ of mandate, declarator'judthnent,;and preliminary'and permanent -
j -. :16 injunctions setting aside and enjommg the Water Project;on,'the grounds that it violates ' , ^
1°7•' Government Code Sections 53091,,65401 and 65402 areder red - '''- .4,.
18
'- 19 Dated: '(Z�T Zcao _ I I f
• /0
tt.ge.o e open. . `ou
21.
23
• , - 24 S
25' s
26 .
a . 27. • 16The•EIR•contained a speCific•analysis of the Water Project's'consistency with the ' I -
28„ Sonoma'County General Plan [AR-8a 4706-4718] - - ; ji , .
lai
29
-STATEMENT OF DECISION ON FIRST,AND - - -- - •
_a;.,,; SECOND;CAUSES,OFACTION: . . -
iii
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA • • • •
DEC 2UOQ
COUNTY'OF SONOMA • - . - • - SUPERIOR COURT;OF CALIFORNIA ?
., : -
CITY OF PETAL-UMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
WaterResoources-and Conservation-Departinent,100"English St.,-Petallana CA 94952
(707)778-4304 Fax(707) 776-3635 Entail: dwrc@ci.petalunta:ca.us
DATE: March 29, 2001
TO: • Fred Stouder, City NI.
• FROM: Yif
Tom Hargis, Director •
1/�1
Department of Water Resources:and Conservation
SUBJECT: April 2nd, 2001 City Council Meeting Regarding the 11th Amended Agreement for
Water Supply
Attached are copies of of the tranimittals to thelCity"Council1regarding Amendment 11.
• . One is the comprehensive staff report that was provided for the July 14th and July 24th, 2000 •
Council meetings. The other is a memo'to you.dated November 16,,.2000 from Steve Simmons
and myself confaining'recommendations on the water supplydocuments.
As noted in the listin g of attachments, Item-A (the`black binder from September 1999) and Item
B (the red binder from January 2000) are available in our office for anyone's review. These I ,
documents were provided,to`the City Council at,that;time.
•
•
TSH/sb
Attachments
Xc: Steve Simmons,
Tom Hargis
file
S/Staff/SB/TSH/412-OI CC Mtgl l`h Amend Agrmnt